Brandt v. Fitzpatrick

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS'
JOINT MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA

JOHN
H. RICH III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

In this
employment discrimination and retaliation case, the
defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(d)(3) to quash or modify a subpoena commanding defendant
Lisa Nash to produce to the plaintiff certain contents of a
Maine Human Rights Commission (“MHRC”) file
generated as a result of a gender discrimination and
retaliation complaint by Nash against the Maine Department of
Corrections (“MDOC”), her co-defendant in this
case. See Defendants' Joint Motion To Quash or
Modify Subpoena (“Motion”) (ECF No. 56) at 1. I
agree with the defendants that the relevance of the materials
sought to the plaintiff's claims of discrimination and
retaliation is too attenuated to render those materials
discoverable. See Motion at 5. Therefore, I grant
the motion.

I.
Applicable Legal Standard

Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 45 provides, in relevant part,
“On timely motion, the court for the district where
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that .
. . requires disclosure of privileged or other protected
matter, if no exception or waiver applies[.]”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii).

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount
in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant
information, the parties' resources, the importance of
the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden
or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

II.
Factual Background

The
plaintiff alleges that he was improperly denied promotions
within the MDOC because of, inter alia, his race and
age, and that the MDOC retaliated against him for filing his
own complaint with the MHRC by denying him promotions for
which he was qualified, and later, by not rehiring him.
See Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) (ECF
No. 29) ¶¶ 1, 7-16, 22, 24, 26. He names Lisa Nash,
a white female, as a defendant, for her role as the MDOC
employee in charge of employee interviews in Portland,
see Id. ¶ 10, and for engaging in offensive
behavior toward the plaintiff during one interview, see
Id. ¶ 13. Before filing his lawsuit, the plaintiff
addressed his complaints in a letter to then-MDOC
Commissioner Joseph Ponte. See Id. ¶ 12. The
plaintiff was employed by the MDOC for approximately two
years before resigning in 2014. See Id. ¶¶
4, 7.

Nash
filed her own complaint with the MHRC, claiming that she was
the subject of gender discrimination and retaliation at the
hands of officials at the MDOC in 2015 and 2016. See
Motion at 5. On April 26, 2017, the plaintiff's counsel
served Nash, c/o of Jeffrey N. Young, Esq., her counsel in
the MHRC matter, with a subpoena requesting the following:
“1. in the matter of Lisa Nash - a copy of the Maine
Human Rights Commission Charge of Discrimination form; 2. a
copy of the dated and signed Nondisclosure Agreement by Lisa
Nash; & 3. complete position statements, with exhibits,
of the parties[.]” Subpoena To Produce Documents,
Information, or Objects or To Permit Inspection of Premises
in a Civil Action (“Subpoena”), Exh. A (ECF No.
56-1) to Motion, at Page ID # 287. On May 3, 2017, Attorney
Young provided the plaintiff's counsel with an unredacted
copy of the Nondisclosure Agreement and redacted copies of
the other requested documents. See Motion at 1-2.
During an earlier teleconference with the parties, I ordered
the defendants to submit an unredacted version of the file
for my in camera review. See Report of
Hearing and Order Re: Discovery Dispute (ECF No. 50) at 3. I
have reviewed the unredacted portions, and incorporate my
findings into my ruling, as noted below.

III.
Discussion

A.
The Plaintiff's Discrimination Claim

The
plaintiff seeks information from a different legal proceeding
to aid in establishing the facts in his own case.
Specifically, he contends that evidence from Nash's MHRC
complaint against the MDOC is discoverable because it is
relevant as “circumstantial evidence of a
discriminatory atmosphere at the Department, where employees
who complain about what they reasonably believe to be
discrimination are punished.” Plaintiff's Response
to Defendants' Joint Motion To Quash or Modify Subpoena
(“Response”) (ECF No. 57) at 1. It is undisputed
that the records of the MHRC are confidential.[1]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
defendants argue that their motion to quash should be granted
because none of the information the plaintiff seeks is
relevant to his claim, as the facts, actors, timeline, and
form of alleged discrimination differ from those described in
Nash&#39;s charge before the MHRC. See Motion at
5-6. The plaintiff&#39;s case involves a charge of race and
age discrimination and retaliation, while Nash&#39;s case
before the MHRC involves gender discrimination and
retaliation. The plaintiff applied for positions as a
probation officer and probation officer assistant within the
Community Corrections section of the MDOC, the hiring panel
for which included Nash, see Complaint ¶¶
8, 10, while Nash's MHRC complaint alleges discriminatory
behavior by an MDOC deputy commissioner and associate
commissioner and a director from the Central Office in
Augusta in ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.